“The body corporate says that it resorted to this option when Crown Lease failed to provide entry to its unit. The body corporate maintains that the drone wash was not as effective as a manual wash would have been,” that said.
The tribunal found the company had failed to provide access as it was required to under the law.
That prevented the body corporate from assessing and completing maintenance work.
The body corporate has applied for recovery of unpaid levies, interest, costs, relief for breaches of owner obligations and the filing fee from Crown Lease.
The body corporate was awarded $68,000, including $42,000 in outstanding levies, $11,000 for debt recovery and $9000 in legal costs due to the owners’ obligation breaches.
A phone hearing was held on March 12 but Sowry did not attend and a representative of the body corporate said he had advised that he would not do so.
The tribunal said he had applied for an adjournment, claiming he had only been advised on March 11 of the hearing date. He or counsel had a prior commitment.
But the tribunal rejected that application and went ahead.
Tribunal adjudicator R Morgan tried to contact him four times during the hearing, each time without success.
“All attempts indicated that Mr Sowry’s phone had been turned off.”
Matters were traced back to last year when the body corporate needed access to the company’s unit to perform a building wash and certify the anchor points, assess and repair a broken glass balustrade, and to check if any risks are posed by the fuse box.
The body corporate set out clear and compelling evidence and submissions as to why each of those tasks are required, the tribunal decision said.
Sowry challenged that.
“Mr Sowry’s email to the body corporate purports to raise safety and other concerns with the contractor’s accessing the unit. His correspondence obfuscates the main issues and seems to be an attempt to frustrate the body corporate from carrying out its obligations,” the decision said.
The tribunal said it had been appropriate to proceed with the hearing and that the body corporate had provided comprehensive evidence and submissions in support of its claims.
“The evidence included correspondence from Mr Sowry suggesting that he/Crown Lease has some unspecified and unquantified claim against the body corporate ... Crown Lease did not submit a cross-application in response to the body corporate’s claim.
“The correspondence I have seen does not raise any reasonably arguable defence to Crown Lease’s statutory obligation to pay the levies,” the ruling said.
So the body corporate was awarded the $68,000 to be paid by Crown Lease Trustees.
Anne Gibson has been the Herald’s property editor for 25 years, written books and covered property extensively here and overseas.
